Loading...
09-14-04Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting September 14, 2004 4:00 PM BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING City Hall — 500 W. Markham September 14, 2004 4:00 PM The Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas met in a reconvened session with Mayor Dailey presiding. The meeting was reconvened from September 7, 2004. City Clerk, Nancy Wood registered the roll with the following Directors Present: Pugh, Vice Mayor Hinton, Keck, Stewart, Adcock, Hurst, Graves, Wyrick, Cazort, Kumpuris and Mayor Dailey. Mayor Dailey asked the Board to consider the modifications to the agenda, and explained that the applicant had withdrawn the original item on the agenda. Mr. Tom Carpenter, City Attorney, announced that the correct procedure would be to note the application has been withdrawn at the owner's request. Director Cazort moved to add the two additions to the agenda, seconded by Director Keck. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, Items M -1 and M -2 were added. ADDITIONS: M -1. RESOLUTION N0. 11,825 - To appoint three (3) commissioners to fill vacancies on the Board of Pecan Lake Municipal Recreational Improvement District #4; and for other purposes. The resolution was read. A motion was made by Director Adcock, seconded by Director Hurst to adopt the resolution. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the resolution was adopted. M -2. RESOLUTION NO. 11,824 - To declare a 120 day moratorium on the issuance of sign permits for areas of the City being considered for declaration as scenic corridors; and for other purposes. Director Cazort moved for the adoption of the resolution, Director Adcock seconded the motion. Mr. Tom Carpenter announced that counsel for Lamar Billboard Company was present, and might wish to speak. Mayor Dailey stated he would welcome their counsel to comment. Legal Counsel for Lamar Billboard Advertising, Mr. Gibbons, stated they had been trying for at least a month, and was directed to the Planning Department to try and work out a compromise of a scenic adoption that would be favorable for both Lamar and the city. He stated that currently there are about twenty permits for un -built billboards, and that what Lamar was trying to do was come up with a common sense plan that would spread the billboard permits out. The proposed plan calls for Kanis Road, Stagecoach Road, Colonel Glenn Road and several other arteries to be closed down and what is going to happen is that the city will have a proliferation occurrence because of the adoption. Director Keck asked Mr. Gibbons why a flourish of activity was anticipated if a moratorium was put in place for 120 days. Mr. Gibbons stated Lamar has three pending permits that have not been issued, and those permits that were applied for were all in areas that were commercial or industrial areas, and not near residential areas. He said their plan calls for placement in commercial zones and industrial zones only, Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting September 14, 2004 4:00 PM where as the city's plan, which is a total prohibition on those routes is going to push the permits to more proliferation into other residential zones that are not shut down. Director Keck asked if one of their applications was on Kanis. Mr. Gibbons said one application is on Kanis and Shackleford. He said their proposal segmented out areas that are only commercial and industrial and nothing was proposed that would place billboards near residential areas. Director Keck stated that was not accurate. That just recently anew one had been built on Kanis at the intersection of Kanis and Gamble and it was placed there by Lamar Advertising, and while it is zoned neighborhood office and neighborhood commercial, it's right in the middle of a residential area. Mr. Gibbons stated that placement was prior to any scenic corridor adoption. Director Keck stated that was correct, but he did not want the perception to be that they haven't put any billboards in residential areas. Mr. Gibbons said that might be true on that particular one, but their proposed plan for the twenty remaining permits is only to place billboards in true areas that are commercial or industrial. Mayor Dailey stated he felt Mr. Gibbons was presupposing what would come, of actions from this Board during that 120 -day period of time. The fact that the Board may not be supporting the segmentation proposal now, and the fact the resolution is before the Board with a motion and ultimately a vote to deal with 120 -day moratorium, gives time to decide how details are going to be worked out. Mr. Gibbons said he agreed, but his point for being here today is that this seemed to be an issue that was very sensitive. Their company made many attempts to contact many people on the Board, and did speak with a few, but were directed to go to Planning and work it out with them. He indicated they had several meetings with Planning, and was directed to a Planning Committee Meeting and that only one Planning Commissioner was present, and one concerned citizen. He said they were at the table and trying to work out a comparable plan, something that would work for both the City and the billboard industry. They were trying to determine where the best final placement of these twenty permits would be, but found that difficult to figure that out because they were not receiving any input from the Planning Department. Mayor Dailey stated that hopefully this action would give the City a little bit of time to work through some of the details as part of a process and then ultimately the action of Planning Staff, Planning Commission, and City Board would hopefully be on the same page, but if it was not, then it would still be part of the public process. Director Wyrick stated she thought it might be helpful if the City Manager outlined what the process is. She explained that the process would start with the 120 -day moratorium, but what did that mean in regards to meetings and how to step through the procedures. City Manager, Bruce Moore, explained that the next steps are for the billboard company, after delaying action at the Planning Commission, that staff was definitely interested in sitting down with the billboard company and trying to craft a viable proposal. After receiving word from the Planning Staff that four permits had been requested on Friday, he felt the next prudent step was to consider a moratorium while discussions continue. Mr. Al Thomas, representing Lamar Advertising, said the reconvened meeting agenda, did not have anything about the proposed resolution. He said they received it this afternoon about 2:30, so they just found out about an hour and a half ago. He stated the fact is that in 2002, the City approved to settle a lawsuit and Lamar Advertising has thirty permits for billboards in various sizes. At this point, there are twenty -one permits remaining. Mr. Thomas stated that this specific issue was discussed, as Mr. Gibbons stated, at a Planned Committee Meeting. At that meeting, the two corridors that were being considered for designations as a scenic corridor, all of a sudden became five corridors. Mr. Thomas indicated that this meeting was the first notice of this action and when Lamar appeared to sit down at the table, only one member of the Planning Commission attended. That was the first time they had any notice that additional streets were going to be added. He stated that the thing about the off premise signs as 2 Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting September 14, 2004 4:00 PM they are referred to in the Little Rock Municipal Code, is they can be sited in four places. Places they are zoned, C -3, C -4, I -1 or I -2. It can't be placed in ay other zoning in the city. He stated that Lamar Advertising has taken some steps since they have acquired this company. One of the steps, which have been made known to the Planning Commission, but not sure if the members of the Board know, is that they have voluntarily taken down over forty signs in various parts of the City. He said that this is an attempt by Lamar not to have a proliferation, have signs strung out on some roads, because they understand that it doesn't look good and it helps them provide a service to their customers. Mr. Thomas said this legislation is identified as a resolution to get past the fact that it is really affecting general rights, and to do away with the requirement in the Arkansas Code to have three readings. He said this is a specific moratorium, not withstanding an agreement by the City to allow permits. There were three permits applied for, not four, last week that this directly effects. He stated that he has some contention as to whether this is truly an ordinance, and second of all it has never appeared as a notice to the public, and third it is at a reconvened meeting that has never appeared on an agenda before tonight. He explained that the way the operating procedure has been for Lamar before they actually sign a lease agreement for a specific piece of property for a sign is that they apply for their billboard permit. They have a tentative verbal agreement with somebody. In two of these cases, the people have not bought the property yet. Part of the purchase of the property, depends upon them selling an easement in order for Lamar to have a sign there. Otherwise, at least two of these most likely, because of this ordinance, the deal would be gone. There is one of the pieces that there is a lease in place. He said he has a problem, when all of a sudden the City has specific requirements in the code, for what you have to do to obtain a sign permit. Lamar has done that, yet now all of a sudden, if the permit is not issued prior to the adoption of this resolution, and there is not a lease in place, then all of a sudden you don't have a permit anymore despite an agreement that the order was signed in front of Judge Kilgore, settling a lawsuit that related to a previous moratorium on billboards. Mr. Thomas asked the Board to reconsider these actions. He said he thought, specifically related to the three permits they have applied for which are all in commercial areas, are all sited as allowed in the Little Rock City Code, on places zoned C -2 or C -3, and are zoned appropriately, or they could not have even turned the permit in to the Planning Department. Specifically related to those three signs, asked that the Board continue to allow these three signs to go through. As to the 120 days, it was kind of interesting to him when his client calls and tells him, the City has just called him for an agreed to moratorium. He stated he would not have a problem with it, but it seems all of a sudden, backhanded and under the table, to not have anything on the agenda, to all of a sudden, share the resolution with the people it effects directly, much less their clients and the people they are working with to having to have a real estate transaction go though in the city, two hours before a resolution. He felt there were questions to be answered, number one, how it was done, and specifically what is wrong with the process already in place, where there can be discussion about what areas the twenty one remaining signs are to be placed in. Mayor Dailey asked Mr. Carpenter, before the resolution was voted on, if there was anything based on what was just presented by counsel for Lamar Adverting that would give pause to the Board moving forward, should the Board adopt the resolution? Mr. Tom Carpenter, City Attorney, stated the case Lamar's counsel is referring to dealt with the sign that was located inside the Clinton Presidential Park area, and the sign had to be moved, and the agreement was that for being allowed to move the sign, they would be given two additional permits, and one to the bank. The City has a cap on the number of signs that can be placed in the City; there are only certain zones on which those signs can be placed. Lamar got two additional permits on their cap, and it said in the order that they couldn't be located on scenic corridors. The disagreement with Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting September 14, 2004 4:00 PM Mr. Thomas on this part is that the fact that there may have been a certain number of scenic corridors on the day that order was signed a couple of years ago, doesn't bind this elected body, from never being able to designate another scenic corridor. Mr. Carpenter stated he and Mr. Thomas had this discussion last Thursday, and was going back and forth as to whether it was a violation of the court order. Mr. Carpenter stated he argued that if they had leases out there, he would have a problem, but then found out they had the three permits that had been requested, which was a wise move on their part. Mr. Carpenter said that what this particular resolution does, is says, if you have already got your permit, and there is a place for it to be put up within this 120 -day period, because they either have a lease, or title to the property, they can put them up. If Lamar does not have the title or lease to the property, then in the resolution, it is stated "don't, put them up ", as the process moves forward in deciding what the city wishes to do about these being scenic corridors, and how to deal with that issue. For those permits that have been issued for which there is no title or lease to the property, part of the discussion the Board will need to have, in terms of the scenic corridor issue, is whether those get grand fathered in or not. Not whether they are forever banned. Mr. Carpenter stated he appreciates what Mr. Thomas said about somebody had a development contract that they are looking at, but in all seriousness, if someone is not going to build a commercial building because they cannot rent a few feet for a billboard, then thought that commercial development has a lot more problems than simply this billboard resolution. He stated that the city is looking at 120 days, to figure out how this area is to look and not get boards up during those 120 days from any developer while this decision is being made. Part of that decision is going to have to be "what impact does that have on the rest of the city as to where boards can be placed and, does the city want to change the ratios, does the city want to look into those issues. Basically all the city is doing, is maintaining a "status quo ", and said he did not think he put a number in section 2 as to permits because he wasn't sure how many had been applied for, or if any more were applied for today. He said if the permits were issued before this was passed, and Lamar has a place to put them, they could go ahead, the city could not stop that, but if they do not have a place to put them nailed down, then they need to be held while this process takes place and that it will be a part of the process. Director Hurst asked for staff to explain the process for obtaining a billboard permit. Mr. Dana Carney, Planning Zoning Manager, explained the process as being similar to any other sign permit process. There is an application form that is submitted. Along with that application form they have to submit a site plan or survey saying where the sign is going to go, information about the dimensions of the sign, they type of sign, whether it's a poster or one of the designations of billboards. Those are submitted to the Planning Office, specifically to Kenny Scott, the only person in their office that does the review of billboards, he has been keeping up with it for a good number of years. He said Mr. Scott would then do a review of the permit to make sure all the numbers are right, and the zoning is correct. He confirms the zonings, and goes out and does a sight inspection on everyone of the applications. If everything complies with the code in place at the time, the permit is approved and the applicant pays a permit fee, and then it goes into the system. The average review time, from the time a permit application is submitted to when the permit is approved is three to four weeks. There were four permit applications submitted last week. Three of the four are located on streets that are being considered as designated scenic corridors. One of them is located on Rodney Parham and will not one of these being considered as a scenic corridor. Mr. Carney stated there are four areas being considered for scenic corridors. They are Kanis, Colonel, Shackleford and Chenal Parkway /Financial Center Parkway. Mr. Carney stated these do not go through the Planning Commission. The go through a staff level review. Mr. Moore, City Manager stated that Mr. Carney had mentioned Shackleford Road as one of those 11 Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting September 14, 2004 4:00 PM areas being considered, and wanted to clarify that it is Stagecoach Road. Mr. Thomas stated that the three permits being discussed today, all have verbal agreements as to where they are going to be, and when Lamar applies to the city Planning Department, they have to specify specific location with a survey identifying and making sure it complies with other rules they are subject to. One of the pieces applied for last week, the deal is supposed to close. Someone is purchasing property, on Shackleford, and it's scheduled to close and part of the closing, is that Lamar at the same time, and purchases the easement from the party. That money for the purchase of the easement helps them come up with the money to help complete the transaction from the person selling the property. While they may not have a specific written lease in hand, they do have an oral agreement. Director Keck asked staff to explain the necessity of moving this forward today, and not making it part of the agenda for action next Tuesday. Mr. Moore explained that after the action last week when four additional permits were received, three of which were in the corridors the city was considering, not knowing what the next steps might be, and requesting additional dialog with the billboard company, felt after consulting with the Planning Department and City Attorneys Office that this would be the most prudent step. Mayor Daily announced the motion was before the Board to adopt the resolution. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the resolution was adopted. DELETION 1. PUBLIC HEARING & ORDINANCE Withdrawn at applicant's request. To appeal the Little Rock Planning Commission's action in denying a request for rezoning of the site located at 13504 Crystal Valley Road from R -2 Single - family to PD -C. Planning Commission: 5 yes, 6 no. Staff recommends denial of the requested PD -C zoning 1. PUBLIC HEARING & ORDINANCE - Withdrawn at applicant's request. To appeal the Little Rock Planning Commission's action in denying a request for rezoning of the site located at 13504 Crystal Valley Road from R -2 Single - family to PD -C. Planning Commission: 5 yes, 6 no. Staff recommends denial of the requested PD -C zoning Director Keck made a motion, seconded by Vice Mayor Hinton to adjourn the reconvened meeting. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the meeting was adjourned. Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting September 14, 2004 4:00 PM Mr. Carpenter stated that before the representatives for Lamar Advertising left, he wanted to clarify that the way this resolution is written it is 120 days, until, or will expire sooner, if the Board should decide to take action, or decide to not take action in certain areas. Mayor Dailey announced that staff and Board would make every effort to expedite the process. ATTEST: J Nan Wood, ity Clerk APPROVED: C Ji ailey, Mayor 4